This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL279425: [analyzer] Correctly add assumptions based on array
bounds. (authored by xazax).
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23112?vs=68023&id=68840#toc
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://re
NoQ added a comment.
On second thought, in `RangeConstraintManager` we need a different
functionality. In particular, from `4 * x < 1000` it does not follow that `x <
250` in the general case (due to possible overflows). But in the case of this
checker, it doesn't matter - we are always sure th
xazax.hun added a comment.
I added a (proof of concept?) implementation to simplify the constraints in the
checker. I wonder what do you think.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23112
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llv
xazax.hun updated this revision to Diff 68023.
xazax.hun added a comment.
- Simplifiy generated constraints.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23112
Files:
lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ArrayBoundCheckerV2.cpp
test/Analysis/out-of-bounds.c
Index: test/Analysis/out-of-bounds.c
===
NoQ added a comment.
Whoops, forgot to answer:
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23112#508333, @xazax.hun wrote:
> I am not sure that the checker is the appropriate way to fix the remaining
> issue with this checker.
Yeah, there are anyway more problems that require this functionality in the
`Ran
NoQ accepted this revision.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Comment at: test/Analysis/out-of-bounds.c:153
@@ +152,3 @@
+// The result is unknown for the same reason as above.
+void test_asume_after_access(unsigned long x) {
+ int buf[100];
Yay, t
xazax.hun added a comment.
I am not sure that the checker is the appropriate way to fix the remaining
issue with this checker. I think generating simpler constraints without loosing
any generality is non trivial.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23112
__
xazax.hun updated this revision to Diff 67135.
xazax.hun added a comment.
- Address review comments.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23112
Files:
lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ArrayBoundCheckerV2.cpp
test/Analysis/out-of-bounds.c
Index: test/Analysis/out-of-bounds.c
===
NoQ added a comment.
Nice catch!
Now, this needs a test. How about this one:
// enable the debug.ExprInspection checker?
void clang_analyzer_eval(int);
void test_asume_after_access(unsigned long x) {
char buf[100];
buf[x] = 1;
clang_analyzer_eval(x <= 99); // expected-warnin
xazax.hun created this revision.
xazax.hun added reviewers: zaks.anna, dcoughlin, NoQ.
xazax.hun added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
Right now due to a missing brace error the assumptions that an index is inbound
in case we are under constrained is not added.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23112
Files:
10 matches
Mail list logo
